pwndbg_probeleak

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It indicates a read-like operation (scanning memory) and lists regions checked, but does not explicitly state safety (e.g., no side effects). The behavior is implicitly non-destructive, but the description lacks a clear statement on permissions or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a one-line summary followed by contextual details and parameter explanations. It is front-loaded with the action and source, and every sentence adds value. The 'See' link is extra but not excessive.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool complexity and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, parameters, and regions scanned. It does not mention prerequisites like active session or return format, but the output schema likely covers that. Overall, it is adequately complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It separately explains each parameter: session_id (UUID), address (default $sp), count (bytes, default 0x40), max_distance (0 = unlimited). This clarifies defaults and purpose beyond the schema's type-only information.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool scans memory for pointer-like values indicating information leaks. It specifies that it checks known regions (stack, heap, libc, binary). However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'pwndbg_leakfind', which likely has a similar purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for detecting pointer leaks in memory regions but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool. There is no mention of alternatives or specific conditions, leaving the agent to infer context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.